Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hardeep Kumar @ Monu vs State Of Punjab on 7 December, 2017

Author: Inderjit Singh

Bench: Inderjit Singh

                                                                         126
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH


                                         CRM No.M-20010 of 2017 (O&M)
                                        Date of Decision: December 07, 2017


Hardeep Kumar @ Monu
                                                                 ...Petitioner

                                    VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                              ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH


Present:     Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Ms.Simranjeet Kaur, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
             for the respondent-State.

                   ****

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondent State of Punjab for quashing the FIR No.51 dated 17.06.2015 under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Banga, District SBS Nagar along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and filed the reply.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the tablets recovered from the present petitioner containing salt does not fall under the NDPS Act. The tablets recovered, as per FIR, are containing salt Tramadol hydrochloride and Paracetamol, possession of which, is not an offence 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2017 08:21:09 ::: CRM No.M-20010 of 2017 -2- under NDPS Act.

Learned State counsel has not contested this fact. Even in the reply, it is stated that as per chemical analysis report, the intoxicant powder which was recovered from the petitioner and his associate, was found to be Tramadol hydrochloride and Paracetamol and the same does not fall under the NDPS Act. It is also stated by learned State counsel that cancellation report has already been prepared which has been verified and likely to be presented before the trial Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

Keeping in view the fact that the tablets containing salt recovered from the present petitioner do not fall under the NDPS Act and in view of the reply filed by the State, the FIR in the present case is liable to be quashed.

Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. FIR No.51 dated 17.06.2015 under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Banga, District SBS Nagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

December 07, 2017                                    (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati                                                   JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes
             Whether reportable                            No




                               2 of 2
            ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2017 08:21:10 :::